The Hearings Missed The Point

The congressional investigation into the Iran-contra affair centered on the nagging questions: ``What did the President know? And when did he know it?``

After 12 weeks of public hearings, Congress came up with the nagging answers: ``Not much. And no one remembers precisely.``

Having cleared those matters up once and for all, what remains to be determined is, ``Should we have bothered in the first place?`` And the answer is: Of course we should have, because the great and unique strength of the American system of democracy continues to be its willingness to wash government dirty linen in public and its ability to not get thrown out with the water.

A political system that undergoes the kind of self-inflicted pain ours must endure is bound to present a picture of strength and endurance to the world, even though the world may have a difficult time understanding it. And any government, free or democratic, would be strengthened by the kind of open debate and constant self-criticism in which this nation indulges.

In that spirit, there is yet another nagging question that ought to be addressed. And that is: Considering the state of things, wouldn`t the country have been better off if the legislative branch had spent all those months and all that money working on something really important such as the incredible and crippling budget deficit, education reform, noncompetitive U.S. industry or our surprising and embarrassing military ineptness?

The answer to that one is: You bet. Every witness who appeared in that hearing room could have been asked some more important and penetrating questions. And their answers could have been beneficial to the Republic.

Instead of patronizing and often flawed lectures on patriotism, Lt. Col. Oliver North might have made a better contribution by explaining why, with all that help from the Central Intelligence Agency, all that weaponry from the Defense Department and all that authorization from above, he wasn`t able to help the poor old contras much at all.

Instead of offering a steely eyed, heroic gesture of protection for his commander in chief, Rear Adm. John Poindexter might have served his country better by explaining exactly how a Navy admiral came to believe it was his job to make political decisions and keep them from the politician elected to make them.

For all his candor, integrity and willingness to sacrifice his job, Secretary of State George Shultz might have better spent his time on television explaining to America why after six years of the Reagan

administration there have been no clear and successful policy initiatives in either the Middle East or Central American hotspots.

By the same token, the explanation by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger of how he was overrun by a colonel and an admiral from the White House basement was not nearly as necessary or interesting as one explaining why, after years of record defense budget expenditures, the U.S. cannot protect its marines in Beirut, its ships in the Persian Gulf, its embassies abroad, or even remove a crude mine from the path of an oil tanker.

But the reason we got nothing more than posturing and fingerpointing is that the Iran-contra hearings, like most televised congressional inquiries, were more political theater than investigation. The Democrat-controlled Congress was far more interested in impacting the 1988 elections than fixing responsibility for the Iran-contra mess.

The one lofty and often articulated goal of educating the public to the deadlock between Congress and the White House on foreign policy was overwhelmed by Col. North`s passionate capture of the scapegoat role.

For the public, anyway, the star witness successfully turned the spotlight on the issue of aid to the contras in Nicaragua and away from where it should have been--the decision to sell weapons to a madman in Iran. If the good colonel avoids going to jail, where he does not belong, such skills of persuasion might land him in Congress, where he would be more effective.

The public is more likely to remember Col. North`s lambasting of congressional Democrats than their inevitable committee recommendations on how the White House should keep the legislative branch better informed in the future.

As for the President Reagan himself, the testimony succeeded in convincing just about everyone involved that he did not know much about what was going on.

Unfortunately, the President`s statements continue to suggest that watching the hearings didn`t change that condition. He says, for example, he still hasn`t seen any evidence that would suggest a crime has been committed, which even his own loyal attorney general, Edwin Meese, wouldn`t support.

While the rest of us may gotten a little more out of the hearings than President Reagan, it was not that much more.